Let me first start by saying Battlefield 3 is definitely a game worth getting. It's fun, it's fast-paced, it has its moments, but it can also be a real headache. I'm going to give my one hundred percent honest opinion and if you aren't a fan, feel free to not read any further than this. I enjoy Battlefield 3 because it's not Call of Duty. I think the fact that its different brings a lot more to the table than your redundant "who can kill whom faster or get the best killstreak" gameplay that Activision seems to implement in every shooter they make, including the Bond games. However, what I don't like about Battlefield 3 is what keeps me from playing the game unless I'm in the mood to actually sit there and commit a few hours to the online play.
I mentioned the online play first because that's all Battlefield 3 is really good for. The campaign is decent, but it's nothing to drop your pants for, nor is it really that interesting. I would have been much more content with just a simple playthrough as the story unfolds without much of the same duck-in-cover and progression that the campaign reiterates. I don't mean that to sound like I've never played a shooter before, since it's not that case - it just seems like the campaign doesn't offer much in the way of variety when compared to, well, Call of Duty. There aren't many "war" style games on the market aside from Medal of Honour, Battlefield and the Call of Duty franchises. Therefore, there's nothing really proper to compare to when it comes to what style you prefer. Then again, I haven't really gotten further than the first three quarters of Operation Guillotine in the campaign. Regardless, from what I've experienced already, I'm not exactly thrilled to continue.
The online play is like any other, but still somewhat different by comparison. With the best graphics I've seen in a war style shooter, destructive environments, usable vehicles, and fast-paced, strategy style gameplay, it proves to be far superior in the market. However, I honestly believe that the online play proves to be a challenge when you've twenty-four combatants running around like chickens on cocaine. Although, there's a silver lining to this thickened cloud; that being the fact that everyone playing, regardless of what style of match, has a strategy. It's what makes Battlefield 3 stand out - the game requires you to have a strategy or else you're going to get killed...a lot. It took me a bit of time to realize this, and as an angry gamer, I find that dying a lot of the time is discouraging, especially when everyone else is 4x or 5x your rank, with access to high-end weapons and attachments, while I'm stuck with a basic assault rifle with an ACOG and a Glock. But you learn to make use with what you have, and that's the point. It's realistic, intuitive, and stellar. Although it does get annoying shooting someone in the head with a sniper rifle and they kill you with a shot to the chest.
I honestly recommend Battlefield 3 to anyone who wants a change of pace in gaming. If you're a Call of Duty fan, I challenge you to step away from the fanboyism and give BF3 a go. You might be originally disappointed, but once you get used to the difference, it'll be hard to choose a favourite.
Battlefield 3's former Lead Designer has revealed that there were two cut missions from the main campaign
Get rid of campaigns, move the game to mobile, and try to compete with warzone. They would save time and money.
Whether it comes through remakes or a new game with a similar style, DICE should aim to revive the glory days of Battlefield 3 and Bad Company 2.
hmmm I think there will be no old BF glory days for EA since they are loyal to their greediness and laziness :D
You're asking for a miracle with EA that will never happen unless they can exploit the money making schemes behind it.
Replies(1)
(Opinion): EA needs to release the Battlefield 3 Remake in order to win back gamers. after the disappointing reception of Battlefield 2042 & Battlefield V.
I've been wanting to see this for a long time; though I don't trust DICE to handle even a remake of their own work at this point.
Give it to Respawn.
Literally the only major in house developer I actually trust from EA at this point.
End-execution result aside .... Isn't that what BF Portal set out to achieve?
BF3 MP(maps + weapons) in a new Frostbite engine?
Hate it or love it .... but that's what they did.
Call it a Remaster technically ... coz Remake would be changing the mechanics and that's wot BF4 did over BF3 at MP side (barring the single-player story, which obviously has to be different)
Definitely not. They need to look at where they went wrong learn from it to make the next game as good as they possibly can instead of descending into the biggest problem with modern gaming and bowing to a hive-mind that is against new games
Hive mind against new games? The hell are you on about? New games come out all the time. New IPs are coming out all the time.
Battlefield pretty much peaked with 3 and 4. Ever since then they either under delivered or simply released broken games.
Naw they need to remaster bf3+bf4. I don't trust them to create new games anymore. I'll buy a remaster on new gen console, but i won't go near a new battlefield game again.
It's already known why it went wrong with Battlefield 2042. They didn't listen to feedback of their own creators, that's why so many of the people who worked on the older BF games left. And apparently they were working on a battle royal BF but changed their mind halfway, hence the huge empty maps. Also the time they had wasn't nearly enough to finish the game.
At least now people higher up have been replaced to fix the game. I assume they are not going to make this mistake again.
They need to stop with the live service bs, and make Battlefield games fun again. They're so worried about getting as much money as they can, that they forget that you have to make something that gamers actually want to play.
Unfortunately I don't think a multiplayer game can succeed on a broad scale without being structured as a live service. People don't like the terms "live service" or "games as a service," but if you ever look at the complaints people have about games, it's clear that's what they actually want. Look at Halo Infinite; great gameplay, and a solid batch of maps; 15 years ago it would have been considered great, but now because they aren't churning trashy new maps in every few weeks, people are crying all over the internet about it. Look at BFV-it got new maps for a year a half, which is later than any BF game except 4, and people still cry about it being "abandoned" because they actually want a live service.
A remake of 3 would unfortunately not work unless they found some way to make it a live service because if they just released the game, people would be crying about the lack of new maps within a few weeks.
You hit the nail on the head! I can’t tell you how many hours I spent on the original Counter Strike, Wolf:ET, UT:99, Gears 1, etc. etc. Heck, going back even further GoldenEye and Perfect Dark. None of these were live services but damn did I spend a whole lot of time playing the same maps and loving them.
It always amazes me when I hear people say that without anything new to unlock, even if it is just stupid weapon skins, that they are bored with the game. As vocal as people are about hating live services, there sure seems to be a lot of people who only get enjoyment from the superficial additions from a live service.
@ElCapitan006
It's nice to see that I'm not the only person who recognizes this. Unfortunately, except for some latent communities on older games, there aren't people who play a multiplayer game because the game is fun anymore. When I suggested on the battlefield subreddit that Battlefield shouldn't have a progression system at all (it didn't at first, of course) I was criticized because people would see no point in playing a game where they aren't "earning" something when they play. This was borne out by all the people refusing to play the objective in Halo: Infinite because they were more concerned with dumb weekly challenges. The sad reality is that, although devs are certainly part of the problem, a lot of bad choices in game design now are rendered necessary because an entire generation had their concept of what multiplayer should be entirely shaped by COD and FTP games.
Personally I used to buy Call of Duty and Battlefield every year since 2010 but the past year I finally stopped. They are both definitely taking inspiration from Fortnite and I'm just not into it. The only reason it took so long for me to stop buying Call of Duty is the zombies mode but that's finally just so terrible I don't feel the need to buy just for it anymore.
Have a couple of years off wouldnt hurt. People want what they can’t have. Distance makes the heart grow fonder and all that come back in a couple of years all next gen and fresh. Yearly churn is just too much don’t need a new one every single year the same thing could be achievable with a few free maps 6-9-12 months down the line not like they can’t afford to at that point they probably have off cuts of levels spruce em up a bit. Doesn’t need a full blown? New sequel every year if the games are that good they wouldn’t anyway 🤷🏻♂️✌🏻 ;
I don't see why a remake of am old game would win people over
Even if they made a phenomenal remake it wouldn't change how they make new games
Because loads of people think BF3 is the best-ever BF game, and EA re-releasing it means they are giving people what they have been asking for all these years. Plus, it's not like it'll cost them a ton
So why a remake, why don't they just structure new games off BF3 formula or is this about nostalgia?
Jack because they're too incompetent to do that. They need to learn to walk first before running. Try copy and pasting BF3, and if they don't royally F that up then maybe they could try a new game again lol. DICE has fallen so hard
I'm having a really hard time deciding whether I should approve this or not.
Again I disagree with this review. I found some of the first weapons in the online to be some of the best, and it only takes a few kills with them to unlock the laser sights and grips. The graphics deserve more than an 7.5 even on consoles. I sort of agree with how you`ve described the vehicles, if the team is good enough you will be a target in a tank for engineers straight away. But if you`re a good enough driver you can just kill them as they take about 3 rockets to blow you up. I dont get what you mean by lack of variety, there is so much you can do in this game. So many guns, gadgets, tags, levels, vehicles and customisation that im not really sure what you wanted from an online shooter. As for the health thing I do perfectly fine just running round like a madman blowing up MCOM stations, you`ve just gotta go around the enemy or take a less than direct approach. If you go running down the middle of where everyone is you will just die and you wont be having too much fun. The campaign is rubbish but the multiplayer is great overall
After sitting back and rereading that review, I realized it wasn't fair and full as it should have been. It's been re-written and hopefully to approval standards.
To author: Did you edit this review?